Abstract
This chapter reports on a small-scale investigation of how linguistic diversity is managed and turned into a resource for social meaning making in an informal, multilingual setting at a Danish university. Although firmly located within the institution of the university, the particular setting (known as a kitchen) represents a liminal space where institutionally implemented regulations and norms of conduct, including norms related to language choice, are less formalised than for instance in classroom settings. When language choice is not a predetermined condition of interaction, the act of selecting or negotiating a medium of interaction becomes a relevant activity for interlocutors to engage in, and we see this repeatedly in our data. Drawing on methods and theoretical insights originating in the Conversation Analytic tradition, we present a number of illustrative examples of the practices of language choice that students display during the formation or reconfiguration of engagement frameworks. We argue that language choice is an important aspect of ‘doing being an international student’ for local as well as non-local students, although the norms the two groups orient to are different.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Of the non-Danish students in the current group, the vast majority were full degree students (29), with a further three exchange students also in attendance.
- 2.
As we will argue in the following, the students in the data quite clearly distinguish between what we refer to as ‘local/Danish-speaking students’ and ‘non-local/non-Danish-speaking’ students. However, it should be stressed that the labels we use are not based on emic terms.
- 3.
Information on CALPIU (the research center for Cultural and Linguistic Practices in the International University) can be found at calpiu.dk
- 4.
ELAN is a software tool for creating annotations on video and audio resources (Wittenburg et al. 2006). It has been developed at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and is freely available for download at http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan/.
- 5.
CLAN is a software tool which among other things allows researchers to produce transcripts with continual linkage to the audio or video data which the transcript refers to. It has been developed by Leonied Spektor under the auspices of the Talkbank project coordinated by Brian MacWhinney at Carnegie Mellon University. Free download available at http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/.
- 6.
Arrows to the right of the transcribed talk give an indication of the separate engagement frameworks. Here, for example, the first arrow contains the timeline prior to Tina entering into co-participation with Lisbet and Gitte.
- 7.
Gafaranga prefers the term medium over language choice, so as to allow for a bilingual medium constituting the medium-of-interaction.
- 8.
If the term immigrant is taken at face value, it is not even a category that Antony can be said to belong to since he has probably not come to Denmark with the intention of taking up permanent residence.
- 9.
It is, of course, possible that Erik and Lisbet have spent time abroad in the countries mentioned, or even lived there on a more permanent basis. We do not have the data on this. However, the participants quite clearly treat Antony’s indexing as a joke.
- 10.
These categories are obviously not as clear-cut in practice as common stereotypes invite us to believe. But that does not prevent speakers from utilising the stereotypes and their simplified versions of reality to create social meaning.
- 11.
Auer is actually more specific since he is writing about turn constructional units (Sacks et al. 1974). However, the particular level of detail is not paramount for the argument we want to make here.
- 12.
For reasons of maintaining anonymity, we refrain from naming the language.
- 13.
From the recording, we can not be entirely sure that Dorte does not say hvad laver I, with I being the Danish 2nd person plural pronoun. However, whether she says du or I does not change the subsequent analysis.
- 14.
Hartmut Haberland (personal correspondence) mentions a heated discussion between Danish students in the same international study programme, where some expressed the opinion that they felt cheated when other Danish students in the programme did not support their attempts to improve their English. As international students they objected to Danes using Danish.
References
Antaki, Charles, and Sue Widdicombe (eds.). 1998. Identities in talk. London: Sage.
Auer, Peter. 1984. Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Auer, Peter. 1998. Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, ed. Peter Auer, 1–24. London: Routledge.
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204.
Blommaert, Jan, James Collins, and Stef Slembrouck. 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Language and Communication 25: 197–216.
Boersma, Paul and David Weenink. 2013. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
Brouwer, Catherine. 2004. Doing pronunciation: A specific type of repair sequence. In Second language conversations, ed. Ron Gardner and Johannes Wagner, 93–113. London: Continuum.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, Carly W., and Richard Fitzgerald. 2011. “My f***ing personality”: swearing as slips and gaffes in live television broadcasts. Text & Talk 31: 525–551.
Drew, Paul. 1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101.
Eglin, Peter, and Stephen Hester. 1999. “You’re all a bunch of feminists” – Categorization and the politics of terror in the Montreal massacre. Human Studies 22: 253–272.
Gafaranga, Joseph. 1999. Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organisation. The orderliness of language alternation. Text 19: 201–225.
Gafaranga, Joseph. 2000. Medium repair vs. other-language repair: Telling the medium of a bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism 4: 327–350.
Gafaranga, Joseph. 2010. Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society 39: 241–270.
Gafaranga, Joseph. 2011. Transition space medium repair: Language shift talked into being. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 118–135.
Gafaranga, Joseph, and Maria-Carme Torras. 2002. Interactional otherness: Towards a redefinition of codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism 6: 1–22.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Charles Goodwin. 1986. Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62: 51–75.
Haugh, Michael. 2010. Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2106–2119.
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in sociolinguistics, ed. John Joseph Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jefferson, Gail. 1972. Side sequences. In Studies in social interaction, ed. David Sudnow, 294–338. New York: Free Press.
Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. Finding `face' in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59:303–321.
Lerner, Gene H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. Gene H. Lerner, 225–256. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Li, Wei. 1998. The ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions in the analysis of conversational code-switching. In Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, ed. Peter Auer, 156–176. London: Routledge.
Lønsmann, Dorte. 2011. English as a corporate language. Language choice and language ideologies in an international company in Denmark. PhD thesis. Roskilde: Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University.
Mortensen, Janus. 2010. Epistemic stance marking in the use of English as a lingua franca. PhD thesis. Roskilde: Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University.
Nevile, Maurice, and Johannes Wagner. 2008. Managing languages and participation in a multilingual group examination. In Higher education in the global village: Cultural and linguistic practices in the international university, ed. Hartmut Haberland, Janus Mortensen, Anne Fabricius, Bent Preisler, Karen Risager, and Susanne Kjærbeck, 149–173. Roskilde: Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, Jeffrey David. 1998. Getting down to business talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings of doctor-patient consultations. Human Communication Research 25: 97–123.
Robinson, Jeffrey David. 2004. The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 291–330.
Preisler, Bent, Ida Klitgård, and Anne H. Fabricius. 2011. Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity and hybridity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, Harvey. 1974. On the analysability of stories by children. In Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1998. Body torque. Social Research 65: 536–596.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2005. On complainability. Social Problems 52: 449–476.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Söderlundh, Hedda. 2012. Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and language choice at an international university. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 216: 87–109.
Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2009. “For the benefit of the tape”: Formulating embodied conduct in designedly uni-modal recorded police-suspect interrogations. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1887–1904.
Theodorsdottir, Gudrun. 2011. Second language interaction for business and learning. In L2 interactional competence and development, ed. Joan Kelly Hall, John Hellerman, and Simona Pekarek Doehler, 93–116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Torras, Maria-Carme, and Joseph Gafaranga. 2002. Social identities and language alternation in non-formal institutional bilingual talk: Trilingual service encounters in Barcelona. Language in Society 31: 527–548.
Widdicombe, Sue. 1998. Identity as an analysts’ and participants’ resource. In Identities in talk, ed. Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 191–206. London: Sage.
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, and Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. LREC 2006, fifth international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genoa, Italy.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 2007. Bystanders and the linguistic construction of identity in face-to-back communication. In Style and social identities: Alternative approaches to linguistic heterogeneity, ed. Peter Auer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zimmerman, Don H. 1998. Identity, context and interaction. In Identities in talk, ed. Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Transcription Conventions
Appendix: Transcription Conventions
The transcription conventions are based on the conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (1972). Some are used in modified form for the benefit of the CLAN software tool.
Identifier | TOD: |
Pause | (0.2) |
Overlap markers top | ⌈ ⌉ |
Overlap markers bottom | ⌊ ⌋ |
Intonation: rising | ↗ |
continuing | → |
falling | ↘ |
Pitch shift | ↑ |
Latched turns | ≈ |
Smiley voice | ☺see you☺ |
Singing voice | ∮good morning∮ |
Unsure | ??Unsure?? |
Inbreath | ·hhhh |
Stress | now |
Raised volume | SEE YOU LATER |
Comments | ((provided in double parentheses)) |
Translations | glossed items are italicized |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hazel, S., Mortensen, J. (2013). Kitchen Talk – Exploring Linguistic Practices in Liminal Institutional Interactions in a Multilingual University Setting. In: Haberland, H., Lønsmann, D., Preisler, B. (eds) Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education. Multilingual Education, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6476-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6476-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6475-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6476-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)